WM 






1 ^ i'-'i 









> » .-- 



1 


■■>:■ 


:>"■' 


^ >- 


) 


)/-> 


^ 


> 




> 


'> 


J» 


? 


^O 


■)^' 




^ 


J 




^-N 



3 > 

hi 



> 
> 


5 tS 


1> >^ 




3 > -■> > 


:» 








=% )") O) 


^■» ■■.•:> 




3i^> 


S)l> 


) 


"^^U ^3 


» - 1> 
/a 


) , 


;> )'),>./ 






:> ^ 


» 




>o 


> 




■ "> 


■> 




3 ^ 


>■■ 




> > 


•> 


■' 


> ) 


> 




:>:0 


> 




>o 


i> 




> o 


,» 




> ^.> 


..-. . 




^>> 


..t 




>■*>. 


! -^ 




'^^> 






■:>■>.> 




> 


:> )> 




>^ 


"■> ■)> 




>^ 






> 
> 


>a> 




J 


> )>-> 




J 



• •£> -) 2I> 
^ ^> 















'|LIBEAMOFCuNGMSS.I| 
I . ^1 

I r'VU)' 1 ^ 

I UNITED STATES OP AMERICA. | 






":> "^"^ ' 









>2^ 



3 ^:>^ ■ ^^'^ 









»^ :> >? 






:y^P^ 



>• .^» ^ '_,r:^ -j:^ -'-^-' 



§3 H^m 












J, l> .i>v> ::g:i> 



>^ ^ S 



> :> 



:3Qi> > 






'4// A /M^l<^/^^^^^^/m^^i^/^^^'-r 



NO TREASON. 



a 



nvo. 1. 



BY LTSANDER SPOONER. 






BOSTON: 

PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR, 

Ko. 14 Bkomfield Steeet. 

18 67. 



6GS 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1867, 

By LYSANDER SPOONER, 

in the Clerk's office of the District Court of the United States, for the District 
of Massachusetts. 



INTRODUCTORY. 



The question of treason is distinct from that of slavery ; and 
is the same that it would have been, if free States, instead of 
slave States, had seceded. 

On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to lib- 
erate the slaves, but bj a government that had always perverted 
and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage ; and 
was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby in- 
duced to stay in the Union. 

The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was 
simply this : That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, 
and support, a government that they do not want ; and that resist- 
ance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals. 

No .principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self- 
evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all 
political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now 
assumed to be established. If it be really established, the num- 
ber of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has 
been greatly increased ; for a man, thus subjected to a govern- 
ment that he does hot Avant, is a slave. And there is no differ- 
ence, in principle — but only in degree — between political and 
chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a 
man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor ; and 



IV INTRODUCTORY. 

asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his 
property, for their uses, and at their pleasure. 

Previous to the war, there were some grounds for saying that — 
in theory, at least, if not in practice — our government was a 
free one ; that it rested on consent. But nothing of that kind 
can be said now, if the principle on which the war was carried on 
by the North, is irrevocably established. 

If that principle be 7}ot the principle of the Constitution, the 
fact should be known. If it he the principle of the Constitution, 
the Constitution itself should be at once overthrown. 



NO TREASON. 



isro. 1. 



Notwithstanding all the proclamations we have made to man- 
kind, within the last ninety years, that our government rested on 
consent, and that that was the only rightful basis on which any 
government could rest, the late war has practically demonstrated 
that our government rests upon force -as much so as any gov- 
ernment that ever existed. t 11 
. The North has thus virtually said to the world: It was all 
very well to prate of consent, so long as the objects to be accom- 
plished were to liberate ourselves from our connexion with ]ing- 
land, and also to coax a scattered and jealous people mto a great 
national union; but now that those purposes have been accom- 
plished, and the power of the North has become consolidated, it 
is sufficient for us -as for all governments - simply to say: 

Our potver is our right. xr ^t, v, = 

In proportion to her wealth and population, the North has 
probably expended more money and blood to maintain her power 
over an unwiU.ng people, than any other government ever dtd^ 
And in her estimation, it is apparently the ehief glory of her 
snccess, and an adequate compensation for all her own losses and 
an ample justiHeation for all her devastation and carnage of the 
South, that all pretence of any necessity for consent to the per- 
petuity or powe'r of the government, is ^^^ ^'^^ '"^f^'Zl 
expunged from the minds of the people. I. short, the North , 



exults bejond measure in the proof she has given, that a govern- 
ment, professedly restiag on consent, will expend more life and 
treasure in crushing dissent, than any government, openly 
founded on force, has ever done. 

And she claims that she has done all this in behalf of liberty ! 
In behalf of free government ! In behalf of the principle that 
government should rest on consent ! 

If the successors of Roger Williams, within a hundred years 
after their State had been founded upon the principle of free 
religious toleration, and when the Baptists had become strong on 
the credit of that principle, had taken to burning heretics with a 
fury never before seen among men ; and had they finally gloried 
in having thus suppressed all question of the truth of the State 
religion ; and had they further claimed to have done all this in 
behalf of freedom of conscience, the inconsistency between pro- 
fession and conduct would scarcely have been greater than that of 
the North, in carrying on such a war as she has done, to compel 
men to live under and support a government that they did not 
want ; and in then claiming that she did it in behalf of the priu" 
ciple that government should rest on consent. 

This astonishing absurdity and self-contradiction are to be 
accounted for only by supposing, either that the lusts of fame, 
and power, and money, have made her utterly blind to, or utterly 
reckless of, the inconsistency and enormity of her conduct ; or 
that she has never even understood what was implied in a govern- 
ment's resting on consent. Perhaps this last explanation is the 
true one. In charity to human nature, it is to be hoped that it is. 



II. 

What, then, is implied in a government's resting on consent ? . 

If it be said that the consent of the strongest party ^ in a 
nation, is all that is necessary to justify the establishment of a 
government that shall have authority over the weaker party, it 



may be answered that the most despotic governments in the world 
rest upon that very principle, viz : the consent of the strongest 
party. These governments are formed simply by the consent or 
agreement of the strongest party, that they will act in concert in 
subjecting the weaker party to their dominion. And the despot- 
ism, and tyranny, and injustice of these governments consist in 
that very fact. Or at least that is the first step in their tyranny ; 
a necessary preliminary to all the oppressions that are to follow. 

If it be said that the consent of the most numerous party, in 
a nation, is sufficient to justify the establishment of their power 
over the less numerous party, it may be answered : 

First. That two men have no more natural right to exercise 
any kind of authority ov^er one, than one has to exercise the same 
authority over two. A man's natural rights are his own, against 
the whole world ; and any infringement of them is equally a 
crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions ; whether 
committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other 
name indicating his true character,) or by millions, calling them- 
selves a government. 

Second. It would be absurd for the most numerous party to 
talk of establishing a government over the less numerous party, 
unless the former were also the strongest, as well as the most 
numerous : for it is not to be supposed that the strongest party 
would ever submit to the rule of the weaker party, merely be- 
cause the latter were the most numerous. And as matter of fact, 
it is perhaps never that governments are established by the most 
numerous party. They are usually, if not always, established 
by the less numerous party ; their superior strength consisting in 
their superior wealth, intelligence, and ability to act in concert. 

Third. Our Constitution does not profess to have been estab- 
lished simply by the majority ; but by " the people ; " the minor- 
ity, as much as the majority. 



Fourth. If our fathers, in 1776, had acknowledged the prin- 
ciple that a majority had the right to rule the minority, we should 
never have become a nation ; for they were in a small minority, 
as compared with those who claimed the right to rule over them. 

Eifth. Majorities, as such, aiford no guarantees for justice. 
They are men of the same nature as minorities. They have the 
same passions for fame, power, and money, as minorities ; and 
are liable and likely to be equally — perhaps more than equally, 
because more boldly — rapacious, tyrannical and unprincipled, if 
intrusted with power. There is no more reason, then, why a 
man should either sustain, or submit to, the rule of a majority, 
than of a minority. Majorities and minorities cannot rightfully 
be taken at all into account in deciding questions of justice. And 
all talk about them, in matters of government, is mere absurdity. 
Men are dunces for uniting to sustain any government, or any 
laws, except those in which they are all agreed. And nothing 
but force and fraud compel men to sustain any other. To say 
that majorities, as such, have a right to rule minorities, is equiv- 
alent to saying that minorities have, and ought to have, no rights, 
except such as majorities please to allow them. 

Sixth. It is not improbable that many or most of the worst 
of governments — although established by force, and by a few, 
in the first place — come, in time, to be supported by a majority. 
But if they do, this majority is composed, in large part, of the 
most ignorant, superstitious, timid, dependent, servile, and cor- 
rupt portions of the people : of those who have been over-awed 
by the power, intelligence, wealth, and arrogance ; of those who 
have been deceived by the frauds ; and of those who have been 
corrupted by the inducements, of the few who really constitute 
the government. Such majorities, very likely, could be found in 
half, perhaps in nine- tenths, of all the countries on the globe. 
What do they prove? Nothing but the tyranny and corruption 
of the very governments that have reduced so large portions of 



9 



the people to their present ignorance, servility, degradation, and 
corruption ; an ignorance, servility, degradation, and corruption 
that are best illustrated in the simple fact that they do sustain the 
governments that have so oppressed, degraded, and corrupted 
them. They do nothing towards proving that the governments 
themselves are legitimate ; or that they ought to be sustained, or 
even endured, by those who understand their true character. 
The mere fact, therefore, that a government chances to be sus- 
tained by a majority, of itself proves nothing that is necessary to 
be proved, in order to know whether such government should be 
sustained, or not. 

Seventh. The principle that the majority have a right to rule 
the minority, practically resolves all government into a mere 
contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be 
masters, and which of them slaves ; a contest, that — however 
bloody — can, in the nature of things, never be finally closed, so 
long as man refuses to be a slave. 



III. 

But to say that the consent of either the strongest party, or 
the most numerous party, in a Jiation, is a sufficient justification 
for the establishment or maintenance of a government that shall 
control the whole nation, does not obviate the difficulty. The 
question still remains, how comes such a thing as "a* nation " to 
exist ? How do many millions of men, scattered over an exten- 
sive territory — each gifted by nature with individual freedom ; 
required by the law of nature to call no man, or body of men, 
his masters ; authorized by that law to seek his own happiness in 
his own way, to do what he will with himself and his property, 
so long as he does not trespass upon the equal liberty of others ; 
authorized also, by that law, to defend his own rights, and redress 
his own wrongs ; and to go to the assistance and defence of any 
2 



10 



of his fellow men who may be suffering any kind of injustice — 
how do many millions of such men come to he a nation^ in the 
first place ? How is it that each of them comes to be stripped of 
all his natural, God-given rights, and to be incorporated, com- 
pressed, compacted, and consolidated into a mass with other men, 
whom he never saw ; with whom he has no contract ; and towards 
many of whom he has no sentiments but fear, hatred, or con- 
tempt? How does he become subjected to the control of men 
like himself, who, by nature, had no authority over him ; but 
who command him to do this, and forbid him to do that, as if 
they were his sovereigns, and he their subject ; and as if their 
wills and their interests were the only standards of his duties and 
his rights; and who compel him to submission under peril of 
confiscation, imprisonment, and death ? 

Clearly all this is the work of force, or fraud, or both. 

By what right, then, did ■i^'e become "a nation?" By what 
right do we continue to be "a nation ? " And by what right do 
either the strongest, or the most numerous, party, now existing 
within the territorial limits, called " The United States," claim 
that there really is such "a nation" as the United States? 
Certainly they are bound to show the rightful existence of "a 
nation," before they can claim, on that ground, that they them- 
selves have a right to control it ; to seize, for their purposes, so 
much of every man's property within it, as they may choose ; 
and, at their discretion, to compel any man to risk his own life, 
or take the lives of other men, for the maintenance of their 
power. 

To speak of either their numbers, or their strength, is not to 
the purpose. The question is by what right does the nation 
exist ? And by what right are so many atrocities committed by 
its authority ? or for its preservation ? 

The answer to this question must certainly be, that at least 
such a nation exists by no right whatever. 

We are, therefore, driven to the acknowledgment that nations 
and governments, if they can rightfully exist at all, can exist 
only by consent. 



11 



IV. 

The question, then, returns. What is implied in a government's 
resting on consent ? 

Manifestly this one thing (to say nothing of others) is neces- 
sarily implied in the idea of a government's resting -on consent, 
viz : the separate^ individual consent of every man who is 
required to contribute^ either by taxation or personal service^ 
to the support of the government. All this, or nothing, is 
necessarily implied, because one man's consent is just as necessary 
as any other man's. If, for example, A claims that his consent 
is necessary to the establishment or maintenance of government, 
he thereby necessarily admits that B's and every other man's are 
equally necessary ; because B's and every other man's rights are 
just ts good as his own. On the other hand, if he denies that 
B's or any other particular man's consent is necessary, he thereby 
necessarily admits that neither his own, nor any other man's is 
necessary ; and that government need not be founded on consent 
at' all. 

There is, therefore, no alternative but to say, either that the 
separate, individual consent of every man, who is required to 
aid, in any way, in supporting the government., is necessary, 
or that the consent of no one is necessary. 

Clearly this individual consent is indispensable to the idea of 
treason ; for if a man has never consented or agreed to support a 
government, he breaks no faith in refusing to support it. And 
if he makes war upon it, he does so as an open enemy, and not 
as a traitor — that is, as a betrayer, or treacherous friend. 

All this, or nothing, was necessarily implied in the Declaration 
made in 1776. If the necessity for consent, then announced, 
was a sound principle in favor of three millions of men, it was 
an equally sound one in favor of three men, or of one man. If 
the principle was a sound one in behalf of men living on a sep- 
arate continent, it was an equally sound one in behalf of a man 
living on a separate farm, or in a separate house. 



12 



Moreover, it was only as separate individuals, each acting for 
himself, and not as members of organized governments, that the 
three millions declared their consent to be necessary to their sup- 
port of a government ; and, at the same time, declared their 
dissent to the support of the British Crown. The governments, 
•then existing in the Colonies, had no constitutional power, as 
governments^ to declare the separation between England and 
America. On the contrary, those governments, as goverwments^ 
were organized under charters from, and acknowledged allegiance 
to, the British Crown. Of course the British king never made 
it one of the chartered or constitutional powers of those govern- 
ments, as governments^ to absolve the people from their alle- 
giance to himself. So far, therefore, as the Colonial Legislatures 
acted as revolutionists, they acted only as so many individual 
revolutionists, and not as constitutional legislatures. And njheir 
representatives at Philadelphia, who first declared Independence, 
were, in the eye of the constitutional law of that day, simply 
a committee of Revolutionists, and in no sense constitutional 
authorities, or the representatives of constitutional authorities. 

It was also, in the eye of the law, only as separate individuals, 
each acting for himself, and exercising simply his natural rights 
as an individual, that the people at large assented to, and ratified 
the Declaration. 

It was also only as so many individuals, each acting for him- 
self, and exercising simply his natural rights, that they revolu- 
tionized the constitutional character of their local governments, 
(so as to exclude the idea of allegiance to Great Britain) ; chang- 
ing their forms only as and when their convenience dictated. 

The whole Revolution, therefore, as a Revolution, was declared 
and accomplished by the people, acting separately as individuals, 
and exercising each his natural rights, and not by their govern- 
ments in the exercise of their constitutional powers. 

It was, therefore, as individuals, and only as individuals, each 
acting for himself alone, that they declared that their consent — 
that is, their individual consent, for each one could consent only 



for himself — was necessary to the creation or perpetuity of any 
government that they could rightfully be called on to support. 

In the same way each declared^ for himself, that his own will, 
pleasure, and discretion were the only authorities he had any 
occasion to consult, in determining whether he would any longer 
support the government under which he had always lived. And 
if this action of each individual were valid and rightful when he 
had so many other individuals to keep him company, it would 
have been, in the view of natural justice and right, equally valid 
and rightful, if he had taken the same step alone. He had the 
same natural right to take up arms alone to defend his own property 
against a single tax-gatherer, that he had to take up arms in com- 
pany with three millions of others, to defend the property of all 
against an army of tax-gatherers. 

Thus the whole Revolution turned upon, asserted, and, in 
theory, established, the right of each and every man, at his dis- 
cretion, to release himself from the support of the government 
under which he had lived. And this principle was asserted, not 
as a right peculiar to themselves, or to that time, or as applicable 
only to the government then existing ; but as a universal right of 
all men, at all times, and under all circumstances. 

George the Third called our ancestors traitors for what they 
did at that time. But they were not traitors in fact, whatever 
he or his laws may have called them. They were not traitors in 
fact, because they betrayed nobody, and broke faith with nobody. 
They were his equals, owing him no allegiance, obedience, nor 
any other duty, except such as they owed to mankind at large. 
Their political relations with him had been purely voluntary. 
They had never pledged their faith to him that they would con- 
tinue these lelations any longer than it should please them to do 
so ; and therefore they broke no faith in parting with him. They 
simply exercised their natural right of saying to him, and to the 
English people, that they were under no obligation to continue 
their political connexion with them, and that, for reasons of their 
own, they chose to dissolve it. 



14 



What was true of our ancestors, is true of revolutionists in 
general. The monarchs and governments, from whom they 
choose to separate, attempt to stigmatize them as traitors. But 
thej are not traitors in fact ; inasmuch as they betray, and break 
faith with, no one. Having pledged no faith, they break none. 
They are simply men, who, for reasons of their own — whether 
good or bad, wise or unwise, is immaterial — choose to exercise 
their natural right of dissolving their connexion with the gov- 
ernments under which they have lived. In doing this, tbey no 
more commit the crime of treason — which necessarily implies 
treachery, deceit, breach of faith — than a man commits treason 
when he chooses to leave a church, or any other voluntary associa- 
tion, with which he has been connected. 

This principle was a true one in 1776. It is a true one now- 
It is the only one on which any rightful government can rest. 
It is the one on which the Constitution itself professes to rest. 
If it does not really rest on that basis, it has no right to exist ; 
and it is the duty of every man to raise his hand against it. 

If the men of the Revolution designed to incorporate in the 
Constitution the absurd ideas of allegiance and treason, which 
they had once repudiated, against which they had fought, and by 
which the world had been enslaved, they thereby established for 
themselves an indisputable claim to the disgust and detestation of 
all mankind. 



In subsequent numbers, the author hopes to show that, under 
the principle of individual consent, the little government that 
mankind need, is not only practicable, but natural and easy ; and 
that the Constitution of the United States authorizes no govern- 
ment, except one depending wholly on voluntary support. 






> ^J» ^^ ^' 















i:»BL> ^ J 



>_J»> 


■2> J 


3 


^^s> 


.2>: 


> ■> 


>3«> 


1>^ 


> 


' •:?'',^-> 


-3>^ 


> 


^r* J.^ 


.,.?>i. 


■>^ 


> •>""> 


.;>^ , 


■>~> 


-. ■> 


1>>' 


:o"': 


' .JA,;>- 


■ .» 


>'>~:3 


_6a»:>j. 


»:■>, 


> > 


.;a)».^> 


1> .N > 


T ) 






"^ 

3 
> 

> 






■■ ■' ' ^- 


. > . 






;■> » ■' 


>> J 


->> 


>:2 
y>2 















.3 3> ^ > 






' ^ 'V^ > ■ '-•^-» » ^-j ■■'■■■ 






'^ 3>5:> » 









3> j-^> >.->» 

5 3'^? 



- . :> .'£•5 z» 

3> 3>,) 


















:? 7> -^> >^> ^5> 

3 > :3>.j>i>i> 

> >:^ _.::»» j> > ,--> -, 

3> .::*-> >j> 9^^ 









.>>|>':^ 



IJIilf^' 



■->5»?,-'.s^^ 






5.>? ' . 









,:^>. >^!> 
>:>>- 












:3> y'yjr>' 






^ .-■*■ . 






2> 



::3Bi^ 



3# 


















yws> 






-^ 




:^ 


F 


— ^ 






^ 




--^ 





^s"^^ :^^' ^si^^y 
. , '^ ":!»>-' >"!>•>.> 

• , ? 'TOR':? J» "> y . 
. ■>' -:»>> y ' ~ 

> ^^ ^ ^ 






> - > ..0 



